By a 54% "yes" vote, Oregon voters approved one measure to raise taxes on the wealthy (defined as income of $125,000 for singles, $250,000 for couples) and another to increase business taxes.
Predictions:
1. Oregon's unemployment rate will increase
2. Oregon will have a net outflow of businesses
3. Oregon will have a net outflow of "wealthy" people
4. The income from the tax increases will fall short of projections
5. The tax cancer will spread to other Democrat led states
But what we see here is that they were willing to raise taxes on everyone else but themselves. Nothing admirable whatsoever about that. Why not put a general tax increase on everyone on Oregon's ballot, if everyone wanted higher taxes? Ah, but they didn't want that---they just wanted higher taxes on other people. Liberals continue to kill the golden goose--and then wonder why the goose wore out.
Posted by: Michele on January 27, 2010 03:47 PMWill be tougher to do here though, but I'm sure Gregoire will figure out a way to hit up everyone so they can keep growing government.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2010 03:47 PM"Oregon voters met the challenge of these difficult times and clearly said that schools, healthcare, public safety and other essential services cannot be forsaken. It is gratifying to see that the public understands the importance of preserving services to the most needy and providing education to the next generation--especially now when those efforts are most needed."http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2010904073_green_light_for_tax_increases.html
Will we be ignorant enough to fall for this line again? Probably. By the way, I voted no on my recent school levy in Edmonds district. I'm tired of hearing "it's for the children" to cover up inept leadership squandering our tax money.
Their folly is our reward. If there are individuals in Oregon who are fed up with high income taxes, there's a happy place to settle just across the river. Washington's income tax rate is 0.0% and it's not graduated.
We should welcome these refugees with open arms!
Posted by: AD on January 27, 2010 05:00 PMBTW, OFM sent this today: HB 3070, titled AN ACT Relating to fiscal reform, has been introduced in the House of Representatives.
i.e. the Income Tax bill. And even though it "eliminates" and "reduces" some state taxes, it still manages to haul in an additional $3 billion a year on average.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 27, 2010 05:08 PMIt never stops there. Inflation will mean that pretty soon $125,000 is poverty level.
Yes, runaway Government and Taxes will eventually collapse Society into Poverty and few Freedoms. Such a Deal!
We would be better off if these states were split east-west instead of north-south.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 27, 2010 08:16 PMmichele,
if you bothered to look on a map, you'd have seen the wealther communities voted this in, while the poorer rural communities voted against.
washington county (beaverton): 53%
multnomah (portland): 71.3%
lane (eugene): 64.4%
wheeler and malheur (two of the poorest in OR): 34%
and the poorer communities will get more out of what they voted against.
but do you really think people will move over $150? i promise they won't.
washington is a conservative state? not by a longshot. that 'geographic minority' happens to be a significant majority of votes, jobs and wealth for the state.
Posted by: mike on January 27, 2010 11:07 PMBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
1. Oregon's unemployment rate will decrease
2. Oregon will have a net inflow of businesses
3. Oregon will have a net inflow of "wealthy" people
4. The income from the tax increases will exceed projections
5. The tax cancer will spread to other Democrat led states
Thanks.
And, of course, the business' will increase the price of their goods/services that these very same voters purchase.
"Well, I say, they're going to start to see unemployment grow this spring."
Better to focus on oneself and making money and let those who wait for Democrats to provide answers to their problems to suffer and learn the hard way.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 28, 2010 09:28 AMWashington and Oregon are conservative states by geography, not by population. If you have a big map and throw a dart at it blindfolded, chances are very good you will hit a conservative community. It is only the smaller but more populated urban areas where liberal loonacy prevails.
The poorest counties will be hit by this tax increase the hardest. This is because they have less of a financial buffer. Businesses must raise prices and/or lay off workers to survive. This will be felt much harder in Wheeler county than in Multnomah.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 28, 2010 03:39 PMAs for soaking the rich, I think Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have created more living wage jobs than the two stadiums that cost taxpayers a billion dollars. For those who still think this is the way to go, be careful what you wish for. Taxing the "rich" and "evil corporations" lead to faltering economies. Michigan is a prime example.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 28, 2010 03:54 PM(so, not only are there two people out there who *could* have been paying new income taxes, but they also stay on the dole now and suck revenue away from the state)
Good going there, Oregon.
California is ridiculous! They are already broke!
Posted by: Tim on January 28, 2010 09:48 PMyou might want to recheck your history books. not all bush tax cuts increased revenue, e.g. they do not ALWAYS raise revenue.
conservative by geography, while making the state actually seem like it would swing to the right, is a completely illogical way to measure a state's political makeup.
and to claim that conservative idocy only exists in the rural regions is, frankly, equally retarded.
the poorest counties won't be hit the hardest, as that's not where the majority of the wealth lies and those making less than $125/250k won't see additional taxes.
gary,
if you really can't hire people because of a $140 tax increase - could you really have afforded to hire two people? yeah, i didn't think so. even with the tax increases, oregon (like washington) is one of the best states for business.
Posted by: mike on January 28, 2010 10:25 PMBeyond that, the total of your assets would be taxed incrementally, maybe 5% on assets from $101,000 $10 million, 8% on assets between $10 million to $50 million, 10% on assets from $50 million to $100 million, 15% on assets between $101 million and $500 million 20% on assets between $501 Million and $1 Billion, 25% on assets of over $1 Billion.
"
http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/01/asset-tax.html
Posted by: Middle Class Hero on January 28, 2010 10:37 PMA few buddies of mine and I have talked about this for quite a few years now and it looks like it is finally here. When will a majority of the voters start voting themselves other people money? It happened in Oregon and expect this type of populism to expand to Washington vie Gregoire. There are now more voters who think anybody but them should be taxed more and that "the rich" owe them something. Crafty politicians like Gregoire will jump on this trend like stink on you-know-what.
The long term agenda of our government run madrassas is to cripple the "graduates" enough through not teaching economic basics and other needed skills to smell the government rat so that this sort of "free" entitlement is expected.
Little do any of the dim bulbs in Oregon who voted in these increases know that this will succeed in making them exactly like Detroit, New York (state & city) and California are now. Net out-migration of tax payers and business owners and exploding budget deficits that can't be reduced because there is an ever shrinking tax base. All Oregon is saying is that they don't want high earners and businesses in their state. With that comes high unemployment, high crime and all of the other social ills of liberal class warfare.
Sweet.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 29, 2010 11:30 AMTensor, I was wondering if you were going to answer Gary's question to you @ 18.
Just askin'
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 29, 2010 11:34 AMMike G
Mike G
You're a freakin' dumb sh*t. I'm going to grab your statement and e-mail that thing all over hell's half acre and get some good laughs out of it. Man what a loon.
OH! I just figured it out. Mike G IS a government worker. No wonder his brain is connected to his ass!
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 29, 2010 03:08 PMGive thanks to both Gregiore and Obama...
Mike G.
So instead of seeing Political Centers as Parasite Economies Mike G sees them as some sort of nirvana...
Personally I'm guessing that Mike G will need someone to read and explain the following to him:
10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals
Posted by: juandos on January 29, 2010 05:15 PMWhat? No, thanks.
Actually, I take it back. I will thank Obama for officially becoming lame in November. It be his actions that make it so.
Posted by: Gary on January 29, 2010 06:31 PMBut, since that would be the sensible thing, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell it will happen.
Posted by: PeggyU on January 29, 2010 06:35 PMHere's a little econ 101 you friggin' boob.
Government jobs don't generate value. Everything you earn has to be TAKEN from somebody else against their will. Laws are created so that you can receive a wage. If it were not for those laws nobody would want whatever you produce because you don't PRODUCE anything. Not exactly service sector huh Mikey? So there you go boobalicious, you are a pimple on the ass of society. How does it feel?
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 29, 2010 09:12 PM1. taxes are NOT taken from you against your will. you have the choice not to pay taxes. no one forces you to pay taxes, let alone against your will. taxes are necessary for a functioning society. yes, your little utopian ideals sound wonderous. but it's still just a fantasy. if you don't like paying taxes, move to
2. there is no value generated by a strong military? there is no value generated by the parks department? there is no value generated by the police department? there is no value generated by schools? there is no value generated by university scientists, hospitals and programs?
christ, talking about being the dumbest bastard on the planet...
"taxes are NOT taken from you against your will. you have the choice not to pay taxes. no one forces you to pay taxes, let alone against your will"...
Hmmm, I guess it didn't even remotely occur to you to do some homework, right libtard Mike?
Maybe libtard Mike should've had someone look up what Washington state's tax laws are and also and read and explain it to him in simple words...
Posted by: juandos on January 30, 2010 03:48 AMi didn't say there weren't consequences for choosing not to pay taxes. but no one is FORCING you to pay taxes. no one is STEALING your money.
reading comprehension would go a long way to curing your mental illness
Posted by: mike on January 30, 2010 01:56 PMI don't know anything about economics!!?!?!
Military? Parks departments? Police department? Schools? Ha, ha, ha!! Boy I'd like to see your investment portfolio!! Ha, ha, ha!! What a dipshit. Go away punk. You're a loser.
Tensor, I was wondering if you were going to answer Gary's question to you @ 18.
I thought I made my derision for such simplistic predictions pretty clear, but I guess I need be more explicit. I don't agree with any superficial connection between the tax code and the economy. Oregon is one of fifty states; it has a significant international trade. It cannot control national taxation or investment; it cannot control international trade policy.
However, I do stand by my actual prediction: if none of the original author's predictions come true, he won't mention them again.
You're welcome.
Meanwhile, your own grasp of economics requires much more education:
Government jobs don't generate value.
If the government erects a hydroelectric dam, the resultant electricity has no value? If the Navy and Coast Guard clear the shipping lanes of pirates, the resultant seaborne trade has no value? If a local port commission invests in infrastructure, allowing an increase in trade, the resultant difference has no value?
Care to guess why your fellow Americans have spent the past few election cycles rejecting your "ideas"?
Posted by: tensor on January 31, 2010 07:05 PMIt's wrong to say that government has no value and you are 100% right when you point that out.
The problem that most conservatives have is not with infrastructure to support an overall economy and we certainly don't have a problem with defense.
But we all know that government has gone pretty far afield of the basics of infastructure and defense, and it's that lack of focus that makes government expensive and inefficient.
It's amazing how fast liberals will hide behind policemen, soldiers, teachers and major infrastructure when they want to defend government, but when you hand them money, those things are the LAST priority for the money.
We all know that given the chance, a modern liberal will put money into a social program before hiring a cop, will start another conservation project before considering building a much needed power plant or freeway, and will put every pet project and boondoggle into the budget they can think of before spending a cent on schools since they know they can leverage supplemental levies that basicall ransom our kids future unless we agree to yet more taxes.
You rhetoric doesn't work here because we both know it's not honest. You guys in the state government all work for the government employees unions and special interests (i.e. Indian tribes) these day. You have no respect for the needs of the small business or middle class.
Posted by: johnny on February 1, 2010 02:41 PMExamples of which include...?
... money into a social program before hiring a cop, will start another conservation project before considering building a much needed power plant ...
Yes, both are examples of attempts to prevent problems before they develop, rather than reacting after the problem has developed. The latter especially, as there can be little doubt that conserving energy is obviously cheaper than developing new sources (usually by several orders of magnitude!) This liberal proudly accepts your compliments. :)
...and will put every pet project and boondoggle into the budget they can think of before spending a cent on schools...
Examples of which include...?
(Or is this just a reverse projection: the first thing a right-wing government does is restrict educational funding?)
You rhetoric doesn't work here because we both know it's not honest.
Examples of which include...?
You guys in the state government...
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of the states of Washington or Oregon. My current employer is one of the biggest private employers in either state.
You have no respect for the needs of the small business or middle class.
My previous employer was a small business in Washington state; it had been, very literally, a garage startup. Everyone who worked there considered himself or herself to be middle class, as I do now (even though I now make far more money).
Anything else?
Posted by: tensor on February 1, 2010 09:36 PMI think what we are dealing with here are four people who are so stupid OR so ideologically polluted, or maybe both, that their brains stopped working quite some time ago. OK guys, let's try a little thought experiment on your idea of government jobs and value.
Imagine if you will, that ALL jobs in the land are with the Coast Guard, Military, Post Office, school teachers, cops, regulators and inspectors. Everybody in the land is employed, no unemployment. Not even 1%. Not even .0001%.
Where does the money come from?
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 2, 2010 10:38 AMI believe in LIMITED government, but I'm not completely anti-government, and I'm certainly not a tax and spend type. I like cops, firemen, teachers, etc. (Not much on the unions that they have, but if I had to deal with a bunch of bureaucrats and political hacks like they do, I might have some representation there too.)
@50 Apologies Tensor, I had you mixed up in my head with another poster.
My point still stands that if government stuck to the basics, and that too often those that argue for more government promise more law enforcement and education while delivering more cushie jobs for the lobbyists and special interests. The government manages best that manages least.
Posted by: johnny on February 2, 2010 10:55 AMBeyond that and on point with the original post about Oregon voting to tax somebody else, this will be the first shoe to drop:
". . . Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who is looking to lure employers from Oregon after that state's voters approved a huge tax increase last week. The tax hike in Oregon "will help our economic development immediately. You'd better believe it," Hizzoner told the Chicago Sun Times late last week. "We'll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago."
They already got Boeing so it's established, they play rough. Ha, ha, ha!! Wave goodbye to businesses Oregonians and all that tax money you think you'll get won't be a fraction in reality.
Full article here
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 2, 2010 11:44 AMLook up-thread. The counties with the highest incomes voted most heavily for the tax increase. They voted to tax themselves, but your contempt for democracy won't let you see or admit this.
Apologies Tensor, I had you mixed up in my head with another poster.
Thanks, no offense taken. I also believe in limited government, but my definition of "limited" moves with the circumstances. Government is, after all, the only entity we all explicitly hire to protect our rights, and sometimes that calls for strong measures, although we all wish it were not so.
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2010 11:35 PM